Nationality, Patriotism and Identity

Originally posted by Starrman
But CFT is very much equating the celebration with the pride in the nation, that's the issue here.

Ok. My point was that the celebration can be simply out of appreciation/love for the country and not necessarily "pride". But I agree, that's a different issue.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

My argument is not that cultural identity doesn't exist and it never has been. It is that the boundaries of that identity are so fluid as to have no consistent meaning across people. My argument is not to prove one doesn't exist, but to show that there's nothing meaningful you can say about it, it has no distinct parts and therefore taking a national pride in it is ridiculous. There's nothing that can be applied to a national scale that has commonality save an accident if birth and as I have already said that's not something you can seriously take pride in is it?

You still haven't told me what English culture consists of.

Originally posted by Starrman
I don't, as is evidenced by the fact that I celebrate birthdays for the meaningless fun, you're sidetracking. St George's day is the subject at hand.

In your curmudgeonly and classically Puritanic way, you're attacking every celebration of local tradition in every country -- local saints in Italy, fire-jumping in Estonia, etc, etc; yet your philosophical views are grounded in a tradition that is characteristically Anglocentric. At least, you've never expressed any views that sounded particularly cosmopolitan. Baudrillard you are not. But moving on -- St. George's day could be an excellent occasion to celebrate 'Englishness' in its multiplicity. Catholics, druids, ranters, old-fashioned atheists, queer Puritans, Pakistani Quakers -- bring on the most eccentric pageant of all time. Think about the carnivals of Rio and New Orleans -- expressions of the spirit of place infused with the accretions of time. Celebrating St George's day -- especially because it isn't the 'national day of England' -- could be just as fun.

Originally posted by Starrman

You still haven't told me what English culture consists of.

Every tale of human joy or woe that was ever told in England ... You'd have to work on a case by case basis. London culture would be a subset of English culture, and since London contains the whole world, you'd discover that English culture does, too -- but somehow it's a little bit different to Parisian culture (which also contains the world); your challenge would be to discover in what that difference consists.

Your basic problem is that you insist on trying to reduce things to a single common denominator, but things just aren't like that.

Incidentally English culture would also include everything that it has repressed, so you could really have a ball.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In your curmudgeonly and classically Puritanic way, you're attacking every celebration of local tradition in every country -- local saints in Italy, fire-jumping in Estonia, etc, etc; yet your philosophical views are grounded in a tradition that is characteristically Anglocentric. At least, you've never expressed any views that sounded particularly cos ...[text shortened]... -- especially because it isn't the 'national day of England' -- could be just as fun.

Nice post.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

pride n. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association.

Unless you take pride to be one of the Seven Deadly Sins, it isn't such a bad thing, provided it's tempered with a proper sense of humour. Then again I do believe Starrman to be a Puritan in Jarvis Cocker's clothing.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

It's the grammar, 'a common identity'. I don't like it either. 'Englishness' though is ambiguous, and that's a good thing. You want a multivalent culture. Any attempt to define a culture adds to the sum of its expressions.

'On St. George's Day we express English cultures'.

'I'm English, but I don't consider myself English.'

'Are you Brazilian or are you just from Brazil?'

I do abhor the notion of cultural authenticity.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
pride n. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association.

Unless you take pride to be one of the Seven Deadly Sins, it isn't such a bad thing, provided it's tempered with a proper sense of humour. Then again I do believe Starrman to be a Puritan in Jarvis Cocker's clothing.

Mmm... I disagree here. Certainly, you might be able to cherry pick one of hundreds of definitions of pride that doesn't imply a sense of superiority, but I'd say the vast majority of expressions of pride carry such a bias. Those that do not would almost certainly be better expressed by other words.

Edit - Terrible grammar. 😞

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In your curmudgeonly and classically Puritanic way, you're attacking every celebration of local tradition in every country -- local saints in Italy, fire-jumping in Estonia, etc, etc; yet your philosophical views are grounded in a tradition that is characteristically Anglocentric. At least, you've never expressed any views that sounded particularly cos ...[text shortened]... -- especially because it isn't the 'national day of England' -- could be just as fun.

How did this discussion get on to me supposedly slamming celebrations? I'm not begrudging anyone for celebrating anything. I'm attacking the notion of national pride, not the reasons for celebration.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
pride n. A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect. Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association.

Unless you take pride to be one of the Seven Deadly Sins, it isn't such a bad thing, provided it's tempered with a proper sense of humour. Then again I do believe Starrman to be a Puritan in Jarvis Cocker's clothing.

What you wrongly suppose to be a Puritan outlook is in fact a desire not to accept the way I am told the world is by others, to seek the reduction of existence into its parts. Along the way I take umbrage with ideas that put such silly notions as national pride up in the importance stakes.

Originally posted by Palynka
Mmm... I disagree here. Certainly, you might be able to cherry pick one of hundreds of definitions of pride that doesn't imply a sense of superiority but I'd say the vast majority of expressions of pride carry such a bias and those that do not, would be better expressed by other words.

I didn't cherry-pick, though -- I took the first definition at hand (assuming that the top-ranked Google hit must represent the most common usage; problematic, I know). But if you can show that pride usually has a negative connotation I'll rethink my view. Of course it's not the word itself but the words that get tacked onto it that cause the problems. 'National pride'... which assumes the existence of a nation and that a nation per se is something that you can be proud of. I think that's what's Starrman's beef it (all jokes aside) and I agree with him on that. There's sonmething strained and stiff about national pride ... Where I take issue is that cultural identity is not limited to 'national pride' (although nationalists might want to coerce you into that straitjacket).

Originally posted by Starrman
What you wrongly suppose to be a Puritan outlook is in fact a desire not to accept the way I am told the world is by others, to seek the reduction of existence into its parts. Along the way I take umbrage with ideas that put such silly notions as national pride up in the importance stakes.

Just kidding. In these discussions you come across as almost completely humourless. It's puzzling.

But 'to seek the reduction of existence into its parts' is to subscribe to the discredited doctrine of atomism. Culture -- is it a set of particles or is it a bunch of waves?